The cutting down of a forest is obviously not morally or legally or technically comparable to the killing of a child. I honestly wonder whether you think you are persuading anyone when you make such a comparison, do you really believe that these trees should be held in the same regard as children?

▲

thunderfork an hour ago | parent [-]

The point is that the damage is not so simple to reverse. There are consequences to destroying and regrowing that would not be felt if the destruction had not occurred.

▲

themacguffinman 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

And the point the previous commenter was making is that the damage is pretty simple to reverse because trees are fungible, a point that is not countered in any way by an incredible analogy to notoriously non-fungible children.

	▲	thunderfork 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Trees, forests, and the things that live in them are also non-fungible. This was also indicated in my previous comment. Hope this helps!